If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

So the premise is a vote for Paul = Guiliani, and that Thompson was a better candidate to concentrate the gun vote on. Discuss, or does anyone think like me at the primary level it is best to vote your principles and by doing so it pulls the field toward your perspective? Especially in a case like Dr. Paul who may be the most progun candidate in the Republican field, although Huckabee is a very progun guy too.

imported post

There are far too many factors involved to develop a foolproof "strategy". Surveys and polls represent a very skewed version of the American population, and on controversial topics like these, many people probably aren't going to make a decision until the last minute, and even that decision will probably be influenced by a particular emotion or sentiment on that particular day.

Instead of all this strategizin', I've got to go with the "vote for who you think will do the best job".

imported post

All of these stupid theories about voting "strategy" is BS. These arguments have been used in the past and they amount to nothing come election time. Now I'll be the first one to admit that I don't trust the electorial colleges. But not voting for your choice because someone says its wrong and a vote for someone else is so silly I can't properly wrap my mind around the concepts. Why don't you go off if we don't vote for Ron Paul Tomahawk is going to vote for Hillary. Isn't that reason enough to vote RP?

imported post

Longwatch, I hope not to take the thread off-topic but my premise here is that voting for anyone other than Dr. Paul is a vote for CFR policy. CFR policy is to disarm America, destroy the Constitution and establsih the New World Order. Our guns stand in their way.

All the candidates, democratic and republican are CFR members, except Dr. Ron Paul. The CFR wants to disarm America sooner rather than later but they are willing to take their time. They don't care if it takes decades. I believe Hillary would get them there sooner than another CFR candidate.

The CFR policies filter down to all our govt.

Here is their own publication talking about how great it would be if America had guns banned. I see a vote for anyone other than Dr. Paul as a vote for thinking like this.

Here's a couple of quotes from the article.
...
After all, it is only within the borders of the US that the government can realistically corner the market on force. And the need for such a monopoly has never been greater than today, as the recent sniper attacks have made tragically clear.

Stanching the flow of firearms in America would be a crucial first step in this direction. And yet the Bush administration - though ready to go to war to disarm rogue nations - allows itself to be outgunned by rogue citizens in its own backyard.

Consider the Bushmaster rifle used by the Beltway snipers. Billed as the civilian version of the M-16, this gun rivals anything used by police. It's the domestic equivalent of chemical weapons: a relatively cheap and portable tool than can wreak havoc and inflict great harm on a more powerful opponent.

____________________________________

So any of the candiadtes other than Dr. Paul is going to have these folks doing a little more than whispering in their ear.

imported post

Simple question, simple answer. Ron Paul.

Harder question: Who is better for the 2A Rudi or Bill Richardson?

He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

imported post

Consider the Bushmaster rifle used by the Beltway snipers. Billed as the civilian version of the M-16, this gun rivals anything used by police. It's the domestic equivalent of chemical weapons: a relatively cheap and portable tool than can wreak havoc and inflict great harm on a more powerful opponent.

I own one of these "domestic equivalent of chemical weapons" and I think it is safe to say that my 4000 pound 300 horsepower Lincoln is FAR more deadly than my Bushmaster. Just think of how many people I could "wreak havoc and inflict great harm on" with ANY automobile vs a rifle. $60 could buy me 200 rounds of .223 or a full tank of premium. Which do you think could go further?

RON PAUL! CFR

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

imported post

I canâ€™t believe that you donâ€™t like Rudy!!! I mean, how could you be against a socialist with fascist tendencies; a democrat dressed in republican clothes. Rudy use to be a U.S. Attorney who would sell his mother down the river to get a conviction against his grandmother for not putting a quarter in a parking meter.

You think Hilary will be bad for gun control, Rudy will use the Patriot Act to come into your home, when you are not at home, using secrete search warrants, and take your guns and ammo.

imported post

Ron Paul.

Lets explain why:

Thompson's campaign is collapsing and his fundraising is dead in the water. Not to mention he favored the 1994 AW ban if you remember that far back. He has since changed that position, but iMO once a 'banner' always a banner.

Paul is #3 in the money and the only candidate to post increases in not just fundraising but polling numbers every signle quarter. Momentum. Keep that in mind, Clinton was polling about where Paul was back in his first run and had no where near as much money, bush was a similar story.

No need to discuss rudy, he filed the first lawsuit against gun manufacturers, fought FOR the 94 AW ban and wants to license ALL handgun owners and register ALL handguns.

Romney? The ultra lib from mass? He signed off on the MA AW ban. He HATES guns. Period.

Ron Paul has NEVER voted for a federal restriction on firearms. EVER. He has introduced sveral peices of legislation that would restore our Rights.

Setting aside the gun issue, The ONLY way to beat hitlery in 2008 is by running a candidate who can beat her. Rudy and Romney? No way. Conservatives and many gun owners will just stay home or vote third party rather than cast a vote for eitehr of them.

IMO Ron Paul is the inly republican who can beat the dems in 08. He'll hold the republican base AND get the crucial liberterian vote. That typical 2-3% (which I think will be higher this year if rudy or romney gets the nod) will be the edge it takes to win.

Keep in mind that 77% of Americans now want out of Iraq. I don't care if you agree or not. Thats the facts. A pro-war neo con cannot win in 2008. Period.

That means we get a dolt who is very weak on national security (like hitlery or obamma) or we gtet Ron Paul who will end the war in Iraq, but who WILL continue the hunt for bin laden (rememebr him?) and is very strong on national defense and the crucial BORDER security.

Thompson is just like rudy in supporting mccains 'guest worker program' aka AMNESTY. I want someone who is 100% pro gun and who wants to compeltely seal the borders. THAT is why I want Paul. He and I don't see 100% eye to eye on Iraq, but I'd rather be out of Iraq and have all my guns and sealed border that in iraq and no guns, open borders and half out of iraq.

imported post

Prometheus wrote:

Ron Paul.

Lets explain why:

Thompson's campaign is collapsing and his fundraising is dead in the water. Not to mention he favored the 1994 AW ban if you remember that far back. He has since changed that position, but iMO once a 'banner' always a banner.

Paul is #3 in the money and the only candidate to post increases in not just fundraising but polling numbers every signle quarter. Momentum. Keep that in mind, Clinton was polling about where Paul was back in his first run and had no where near as much money, bush was a similar story.

No need to discuss rudy, he filed the first lawsuit against gun manufacturers, fought FOR the 94 AW ban and wants to license ALL handgun owners and register ALL handguns.

Romney? The ultra lib from mass? He signed off on the MA AW ban. He HATES guns. Period.

Ron Paul has NEVER voted for a federal restriction on firearms. EVER. He has introduced sveral peices of legislation that would restore our Rights.

Setting aside the gun issue, The ONLY way to beat hitlery in 2008 is by running a candidate who can beat her. Rudy and Romney? No way. Conservatives and many gun owners will just stay home or vote third party rather than cast a vote for eitehr of them.

IMO Ron Paul is the inly republican who can beat the dems in 08. He'll hold the republican base AND get the crucial liberterian vote. That typical 2-3% (which I think will be higher this year if rudy or romney gets the nod) will be the edge it takes to win.

Keep in mind that 77% of Americans now want out of Iraq. I don't care if you agree or not. Thats the facts. A pro-war neo con cannot win in 2008. Period.

That means we get a dolt who is very weak on national security (like hitlery or obamma) or we gtet Ron Paul who will end the war in Iraq, but who WILL continue the hunt for bin laden (rememebr him?) and is very strong on national defense and the crucial BORDER security.

Thompson is just like rudy in supporting mccains 'guest worker program' aka AMNESTY. I want someone who is 100% pro gun and who wants to compeltely seal the borders. THAT is why I want Paul. He and I don't see 100% eye to eye on Iraq, but I'd rather be out of Iraq and have all my guns and sealed border that in iraq and no guns, open borders and half out of iraq.

I'd worry about Paul's unwholesome associations, but it doesn't matter. He's got as much chance of getting the nomination as I do, nevermind winning the general election.

You've been watching too much Faux News. Ron Paul is the one. If the MSM gave him as much airtime as the other candidates it would be a landslide.

Also, I'm not sure what "unwholesome associations" you're talking about? It's all the other major candidates that are the members of the C.F.R. If you wanna merge the US with Canada and Mexico then go right ahead and vote for one the C.F.R. puppets.

imported post

You've been watching too much Faux News. Ron Paul is the one. If the MSM gave him as much airtime as the other candidates it would be a landslide.

Also, I'm not sure what "unwholesome associations" you're talking about? It's all the other major candidates that are the members of the C.F.R. If you wanna merge the US with Canada and Mexico then go right ahead and vote for one the C.F.R. puppets.

Hi qednick,

Looks like you are in Texas. How's that CFR project for the new superhighway coming? The one where, without any vote or congressional oversite, vast tracts of private land in Texas have been awarded to a Spanish company in a no bid contract. The Spanish company then has the ability to charge and regulate tolls on the road for 50 years. There would be no more border between Texas and Mexico. Seems like folks down in TX are rightfully rather upset, as should we all be.

This is what CFR "harmonizing" of the borders is all about. Since all the candidate besides Dr. Paul are CFR member and CFR influenced I don't see any of them stopping the CFR's number one project right now of destroying US sovereignty.

imported post

Ron Paul is not only the best Republican candidate, but he's the only Republican who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning against a Democrat after Bush's last 7 years. Conservatives love him, independents love him, hell even many Democrats love him. What other candidate is willing to give you a 30% raise in your salary and get the IRS off your back?

I think in a Paul vs. Clinton election, Ron Paul would win by a landslide. He's got my vote, regardless of who the Republican party nominates.

I believe in his lifetime he has been/is a doctor, state senator, economist and constitutionalist. So he is working on at least 4 dimensions there.

There are other issues beyond my right to defend self and family. For instance I believe if one studies the Fed, the IRS, Fiat currencies and our current economic situation and can themselves come to the understanding that the Fed is a private bank that loans money to the US at interest, and that our income taxes do not even cover the interest payments on those loans, that Dr. Paul's vision of eliminating the Fed is most interesting.

We cannot keep printing worthless paper and trying to sell it to the Chineese for worthless poisoned plastics.

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

imported post

No NAU wrote:

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

We already can't finance our own debt. We create debt by printing money, but we have to print money to pay for that debt. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be broken without getting rid of the Federal Reserve system and changing the way currency is generated and backed.

imported post

The dollar is so low right now many countries are looking at no longer using US dollars as the "gold standard". Once that happens we will no longer be able to finance our own debt.

We already can't finance our own debt. We create debt by printing money, but we have to print money to pay for that debt. It's a vicious cycle that cannot be broken without getting rid of the Federal Reserve system and changing the way currency is generated and backed.

Thank you Cue-Ball. I agree. With that in mind let us consider that all the candidates beside Dr. Paul and Obama (and Obama and his wife are CFR gun grabbers) wish to continue our overseas empire, or that is what they have indicated in debates.

All other candidates besides Dr. Paul, as far as they have indicated, are not looking to break away from our current unsupportable financial model.

The Fed just printed $41 BILLION dollars of its monopoly money to try and stave off disaster. Printing money out of thin air makes the other money already out there worth less, that is "inflation". $41 BILLION that is not real money.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve pumped $41 billion into the U.S. financial system Thursday, one of its largest cash infusions to help companies get through a credit crunch that took a turn for the worse in August.

The action comes one day after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and all but one of his central bank colleagues voted to slice a key interest rate for the second time in six weeks to protect the economy from the ill effects of collapse in the housing market, aggravated by the credit troubles.

_________________________________
Below are some quotes from a new article by Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home, unlike the other candidates.

"The macho super patriots who support the Bush regime still haven't caught on that US superpower status rests on the dollar being the reserve currency, not on a military unable to occupy Baghdad. If the dollar were not the world currency, the US would have to earn enough foreign currencies to pay for its 737 oversees bases, an impossibility considering America's $800 billion trade deficit."

"Clearly, America's leader and America's currency are poorly regarded. Is there a solution?

Perhaps the answer lies in those 737 overseas bases. If those bases were brought home and shared among the 50 states, each state would gain 15 new military bases.

Imagine what this would mean: The end of the housing slump. A reduction in the trade deficit. And the end of the war on terror.

Who would dare attack a country with 15 new military bases in every state in addition to the existing ones? Wherever a terrorist turned, he would find himself surrounded by soldiers.

All of the dollars currently spent abroad to support 737 overseas bases would be spent at home. Income for foreigners would become income for Americans, and the trade deficit would shrink.

The impact of the 737 military base payrolls on the US economy would end the housing crisis and bring back the 140,000 highly paid financial services jobs, the loss of which this year has cost the US $42 billion in consumer income. Foreclosures and bankruptcies would plummet."

You've been watching too much Faux News. Ron Paul is the one. If the MSM gave him as much airtime as the other candidates it would be a landslide.

Also, I'm not sure what "unwholesome associations" you're talking about? It's all the other major candidates that are the members of the C.F.R. If you wanna merge the US with Canada and Mexico then go right ahead and vote for one the C.F.R. puppets.

That I know of, Fox News has never talked about his ties to Holocaust deniers or the guy who runs the Stormfront website.

--- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.